First of all, I see the little games you play. Admit it (which you won't) that conceptually you cannot dispute this. You know you cannot dispute this, so you have to throw a pipe bomb in the conversation to hopefully throw it off course.

Actually, I do dispute it. You're using the dictionary definition of faith - based on semantics and language - to try to claim that people shouldn't even try to investigate religious faith via science (at least as far as I can tell). And that's complete and total BS.

Faith is making a decision to trust someone or something based on insufficient evidence. For example, if I say that I have faith in someone, it means I'm not sure that they can follow through, but I'm trusting that they can. If I knew they could follow through, I wouldn't say I had faith in them, I'd say I knew they could do it. Nonetheless, the fact that we sometimes have to make decisions based on insufficient knowledge, or even no knowledge at all, doesn't justify not even making the effort to attain more knowledge so as to be able to make a better decision.

Quote from: holybuckets

Let me post this again, so you will understand the context.

How can "faith" stand up to "scientific" investigation? Can you explain this one to me please?Faith is something that cannot be proven scientifically. Hence the word faith.

"Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It is also belief that is not based on proof.[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

The way you probably mean that saying is that there's no point in even trying to investigate religious faith scientifically. In effect, all that means is that you're not even willing to try - even though it would validate your whole religious system if you could - meaning you're more interested in maintaining your belief rather than in determining what's actually true. There's a saying regarding this: "He fears his fate too much, and his desserts are small, he who will not put it to the touch --- to win or lose it all." It's from The General seriesWiki by S.M. Sterling.

Quote from: holybuckets

Yet you atheists demand "scientific" proof. Can you see how ignorant your argument is?

It isn't ignorant at all. In fact, the reasoning is fairly simple. If religious faith is impossible to prove or disprove using scientific methodology (the best methodology we have to determine if something is false or not), then what business does anyone have trying to teach it as The Truth? I know you believe it is, but as you just got done saying, you don't have sufficient evidence to base that conclusion on, thus why you have to take it as faith, and why every believer has had to take it on faith for thousands of years. Why should anyone take your belief seriously, as if it were more real than, well, reality? Why should anyone believe anything you have to say about your faith, if you can never prove it?

Quote from: holybuckets

Once again Azdgari, "religious faith doesn't stand up to scientific examination". The person who posted this thought that he/she was being so smart as to come up with this brilliant claim. No duh!

As opposed to you painting yourself into a corner by trying to mock it?

Why didn't you just say, 'yes, that's correct, I have no proof' then? It's not ignorant to restate a fact you both agree on.

Do you truly believe that religious faith is a respectable reason to believe in any version of a God or gods?

I have to be honest, I first started to type a real scathing post to this response, but I think I will deal with you, on this one, gently.

First, so we both agree that religious faith cannot be examined scientifically even though you keep insisting.Second, you ask if religious faith is a respectable reason to believe in God? Jeff, faith is the reason you believe or do not believe in God. You cannot see God. God is not a tangible object that dangles on your rear view mirror. So, in terms of it being a "respectable" reason, it is the "only" reason. If you don't believe in God, then don't believe in God. It is as simple as that. But to ask someone to show scientific evidence for an intangible and philosophical object is asinine. I can see it now, everyone is going to ask the same pseudo-intellectual questions, so go ahead. But my answer will always be the same. You cannot prove/disprove religious faith using a scientific examination.

Lol thanks for sparing me your wrath. I was terrified there for a minute.

I'm not insisting anything. I just happen to think a scientific approach to knowledge claims (especially ones that seem ridiculous) is the best one. In fact, I believe your religion has done a good job of side-stepping that problem by making faith virtuous, which is a great place to hide when there's nothing of substance to a belief. Keep in mind that a God that doesn't exist would also present with no scientific evidence, and anyone with half a brain can say, 'gotta have faith'.

What other intangible, philosophical objects do you believe in?

Faith, as a reason for belief in any sort of entity, is utterly stupid. Imagine I said faith was the reason I believed there was a dragon in my garage, and I told you either you believe in the Dragon or you don't, and that faith was the only reason to believe it. Seriously, what would you think of me for saying that? Do you think that is respectable? You said that faith is the only reason for belief in God, but that doesn't mean it's respectable. I'd like an answer to that. Do you think it's respectable?

I still don't see why, when someone said that religion doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, you didn't just say, 'yeah, that's true'true. Maybe that bothers you some. It should.

BTW, feel free to be scathing if you want. I'll move past it and look to the content. You're spittle riddled reaction might even make me laugh a little.

Logged

Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT

I always get a kick out of those who break down your post and feel the need to comment on every paragraph. It seems so authoritative, or should I say you think you are so authoritative by intellectually disputing each and every point. But your arguments are hilarious.Here's one: "You're using the dictionary definition of faith - based on semantics and language ...And that's complete and total BS."

Ok, we take a word, look it up in the dictionary, use it in it's correct context... and the answer is....."That's complete and total BS."

Again, my original post was in hopes that a person would not accept the atheist ignorant, illogical, and unethical arguments. Please read this thread and you will find your "evidence".

I always get a kick out of those who break down your post and feel the need to comment on every paragraph. It seems so authoritative, or should I say you think you are so authoritative by intellectually disputing each and every point.

And it's even more funny when someone attempts to deride me for posting that way. To put it simply for you, if your argument can't hold up to being dissected, it wasn't that good of an argument to begin with. Let me give you a clue - I don't post that way to seem authoritative, I post that way because it exposes the weaknesses in a bad argument, and allows me to elaborate on each one separately.

Quote from: holybuckets

But your arguments are hilarious.

So?

Quote from: holybuckets

Here's one: "You're using the dictionary definition of faith - based on semantics and language ...And that's complete and total BS."

Ok, we take a word, look it up in the dictionary, use it in it's correct context... and the answer is....."That's complete and total BS."

Try again, holybuckets. That was awful even for you.

BTW, here's the part of my post you tried to exclude: " to try to claim that people shouldn't even try to investigate religious faith via science (at least as far as I can tell)." I was criticizing your attempt to use semantics and language to claim that people shouldn't even try to investigate religious faith via science - and that's what I called "complete and total BS".

What, did you seriously think I'd overlook your attempt to strip my statement of the relevant context and give you a bye on it?

Quote from: holybuckets

Again, my original post was in hopes that a person would not accept the atheist ignorant, illogical, and unethical arguments. Please read this thread and you will find your "evidence".

Well, taking a look at what you just tried to pull on me...

Ignorant? Yes. Manipulating a person's statement to try to make them look bad when they only just posted it and it is thus fresh in their minds is pretty demonstratively ignorant.

Illogical? Yes. You just tried to dismiss my whole post by pretending that the quote you manipulated was representative of it. Doesn't work, and it certainly isn't logical.

Unethical? Yes. You just got caught doing something which is highly unethical in an argument - you took my words way out of context so you could then dismiss the rest of my argument.

Faith, as a reason for belief in any sort of entity, is utterly stupid... You said that faith is the only reason for belief in God, but that doesn't mean it's respectable. I'd like an answer to that. Do you think it's respectable?

And for some of us, "Just have faith" just isn't a viable option. I don't seem to have the neurological wiring to sustain faith in the total absence of evidence, which is why I've been unable to wholeheartedly participate in any theistic community for an entire lifetime. "Help thou my unbelief" and "Fake it till you make it" have been consistently unhelpful because they deny legitimate feelings and substitute make-believe faith.

So what else can I do but continue to hold out for the only thing that satisfies emotionally and intellectually -- Actual evidence?

Again, my original post was in hopes that a person would not accept the atheist ignorant, illogical, and unethical arguments. Please read this thread and you will find your "evidence".

All I found was an unsupported statement by you to the effect that faith is not susceptible to scientific examination. Of course, to you, that would be very convenient. Unfortunately for you, faith is susceptible to scientific examination.

Faith is something that goes on inside your head - the same place your god, or anyone else's god, is - in the head, namely the brain. So we look at the brain.

First, so we both agree that religious faith cannot be examined scientifically even though you keep insisting.Second, you ask if religious faith is a respectable reason to believe in God? Jeff, faith is the reason you believe or do not believe in God. You cannot see God. God is not a tangible object that dangles on your rear view mirror. So, in terms of it being a "respectable" reason, it is the "only" reason. If you don't believe in God, then don't believe in God. It is as simple as that. But to ask someone to show scientific evidence for an intangible and philosophical object is asinine.

So you agree then that there is no way of proving a god - but didn't we just have a whole thread of you offering proof? I don't understand - if the ONLY reason to believe is "faith", then why have you been insisting that your religion has evidence behind it? Doesn't evidence negate faith.....the "only" reason to believe?

So you agree then that there is no way of proving a god - but didn't we just have a whole thread of you offering proof? I don't understand - if the ONLY reason to believe is "faith", then why have you been insisting that your religion has evidence behind it? Doesn't evidence negate faith.....the "only" reason to believe?[/quote]Once again you disappoint me Anfauglir,I never said there is "no way" of proving a god, as you claim. I did say, and cited the fact that religious faith could not be proven scientifically. So, your statement is incorrect.So, as far as faith goes, it is true that you come to God by faith, any Christian would agree to that. God wants to be loved and worshiped, not something proven or disprove in a petri dish. But is scientific evidence the only proof?Is scientific evidence the only proof that we use in our court systems? In our Debates? Let's see, what are some other areas to show that God could or could not exist? I will give you the floor....

So you agree then that there is no way of proving a god - but didn't we just have a whole thread of you offering proof? I don't understand - if the ONLY reason to believe is "faith", then why have you been insisting that your religion has evidence behind it? Doesn't evidence negate faith.....the "only" reason to believe?

Once again you disappoint me Anfauglir,I never said there is "no way" of proving a god, as you claim. I did say, and cited the fact that religious faith could not be proven scientifically. So, your statement is incorrect.So, as far as faith goes, it is true that you come to God by faith, any Christian would agree to that. God wants to be loved and worshiped, not something proven or disprove in a petri dish. But is scientific evidence the only proof?Is scientific evidence the only proof that we use in our court systems? In our Debates? Let's see, what are some other areas to show that God could or could not exist? I will give you the floor....

Sorry, but you said to Jeff that religious faith is the ONLY reason to believe in god. If that is the case, why should anyone care about evidence at all?

I really don't understand what you are saying. Why would someone who has faith be interested in ANY kind of proof? Struggling to understand the point you are making, sorry.

[/quote]Sorry, but you said to Jeff that religious faith is the ONLY reason to believe in god. If that is the case, why should anyone care about evidence at all? I really don't understand what you are saying. Why would someone who has faith be interested in ANY kind of proof? Struggling to understand the point you are making, sorry.[/quote]That's OK, I try not to write a lot because I hate it when someone posts an extravagantly long post that takes a long time to read.Let me give you this Bible verse: Ephesians 2:8-9

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

That being said, you come to Jesus by faith, not by proof. But, it is not blind faith. Romans 10:17 says "faith comes form hearing the message."

So so answer your question, yes, there are several "proofs", although you would deny them all. But that is your belief or faith. You do not accept. I do...

Back to the discussion, Are we in agreement that God cannot be proven nor disproved by scientific methods? What are some areas God may be proven or disproved? Are there any?

1. Please learn to quote properly - its quite hard to work through your posts.

2. As far as scientific proof of your god, can you answer one simple question first? Is you god active in the world i.e answering prayer by putting words into people's minds, actively healing people etc?

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

So so answer your question, yes, there are several "proofs", although you would deny them all. But that is your belief or faith. You do not accept. I do...

The reason I (and probably most others) don't accept your 'proofs' is because they don't actually prove anything. When examined, they're found lacking, in most cases severely. For example, the Bible is anything but a reliable source for information on your god, considering it was written by humans who had a vested interest in trying to create evidence to support their own beliefs in the face of nonbelievers.

Quote from: holybuckets

Back to the discussion, Are we in agreement that God cannot be proven nor disproved by scientific methods?

Disagree. Anything that exists can be observed and examined scientifically. Therefore, if your god exists, scientific methodology could at least determine that much. Thus, the claim that your god cannot be proven or disproved by scientific methodology is a strong indication that it probably doesn't exist outside of your imagination.

Quote from: holybuckets

What are some areas God may be proven or disproved? Are there any?

If you actually know of any of these areas, why not just tell us? If you don't know (and continuing with this coy act will strongly suggest that you don't), then Anfauglir's point stands - that you know of no way to actually prove your god's existence, thus you can only accept that he exists by faith.

1. Please learn to quote properly - its quite hard to work through your posts.

2. As far as scientific proof of your god, can you answer one simple question first? Is you god active in the world i.e answering prayer by putting words into people's minds, actively healing people etc?

I revised my post....1. I apologize for the post not being easy to read.2. You are asking what are called a pseudo-questions.

I am am asking a factual question - do you think your god acts in the world today?

Wheels, your are arguing in fallacy. First of all, you are not asking a "factual question", you are asking for an "opinion". Secondly, it is impossible for anyone to know what God is thinking or doing. This line of questioning is invalid. I am not going round and round with you on "God did this"... "well why didn't He do this?".... blah blah blah

Jaime,For me to answer your questions, I would have to start form scratch. Please follow Anfauglir's posts- I believe they will answer some of the questions you are asking.

I've been following Anfauglir's posts, but I don't really agree with him on some points, thus why I'm going at it a different direction.

This is what I am saying, atheists have no scientific proof that God does or does not exist. Christians have no "scientific" proof that God does or does not exist.I do get a kick out of the games you atheists play. You trap some poor and unsuspecting Christian into bearing his testimony that "God created the world and we are His loving children", then fry him to prove it with scientific details. The fact is that he cant and neither can you. Which makes this whole argument an ignorant argument.You and I cannot prove God using scientific methods because we do not have the methods, or the availability to evidence that would lead to a conclusion one way or another. We simply don't know.But is that the only evidence available? Let's say we were involved in a murder trial where there was no DNA or any other type of forensic evidence. How would the lawyers argue the case. Would they conclude that if scientific evidence did not exist that the defendant is automatically innocent? Or guilty? So my question is, what type of evidence would you accept for proving the existence or non-existence of God?

Thanks for the clarification.Yes absolutely I think God acts in the world today. This is my opinion. Azdgari, I answered the question, but I refuse to play any of your little atheist set up games. Do you understand me?

Still waiting Azdgari,Do you understand that I am not going to get into a second grade atheist discussion answering questions like: "can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?" "If there's a God.... how come......"Just so you know.PS This is the 3rd time I have asked this question. Do you understand this?

I'm afraid I don't agree with you, holybuckets. And if you had bothered to read my earlier posts in this thread, rather than trying to blow them off by saying, "Go read Anfauglir's, that'll answer your questions", you might understand why that is.

Anything in the universe (including something that is only temporarily in it) will necessarily leave evidence of its existence behind. That includes your god, since he would have to enter the universe somehow in order to do anything within it. Even if he could do so remotely (say, by being able to manipulate things inside the universe without entering), he would still leave some evidence of it having happened, and that evidence could be detected and examined by scientific methodology. And even if it was something beyond our current ability to detect, it would still leave a footprint that we could eventually discover (just as we can use the residues of radioactive decay to date things that are thousands, millions, or even billions of years old).

The fact that we've never once detected anything like this is telling. It leads to one of four inescapable conclusions. First, that your god doesn't exist and therefore never has done anything that could be detected in the first place; second, that your god exists but has never done anything that could be detected; third, that your god exists and has done things that could be detected, but has done so in such a way as to hide that fact from us; and fourth, that your god exists and has done things that could be detected, and we simply do not possess the ability to detect them at this point in time.

I think we can safely rule out the third option, because of the fact that your god has supposedly revealed himself to humans in the past. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that he would start hiding his presence for no reason. Similarly, option 1 and 2 are essentially the same thing - a god that exists but does nothing is fundamentally no different from a god which doesn't exist, from a human perspective (not to mention that your religion claims your god has revealed himself to humans in the past). So, either your god doesn't exist, or he exists and has done things that we can't currently detect through science.

However, there's an additional point to consider. Your god has apparently done nothing that is distinguishable from random chance since humans developed the ability to actually search for scientific evidence of his actions. While that isn't proof, it does beg the question of why. The usual Christian apologetics (such as "God wants people to have faith" and so on) are hardly satisfactory explanations for that.

That being said, it's true that one cannot demonstrate the non-existence of your god using scientific methodology. But it would be possible to demonstrate the existence of your god through that same methodology.

What kind of evidence would I accept? Scientific evidence, because it would prove the existence of your god beyond a reasonable doubt. If you have some other kind that you could present that meets a similar standard, feel free to propose it here, but don't expect me to play "guess the kind of evidence" with you.

The thing is, Holybuckets, that the fact there is now no factual evidence of the existence or non-existence of a god does not mean that we could not actually come up with something. Now like all science, we would not be able to declare that there is no god because that isn't possible but we could get to the stage of finding that if there is a god it is a very inactive one - one that does not actually interact with the world at all. The problem for you, then, would be that if that was the case, it could not be the god you think acts in the world.

Now at any point in which it is proposed that the immaterial god interacts with the material world we ought to be able to detect something going on - whether we are looking at the insides of a brain in a scanner or examining some other material in the world.These are places where we might expect to see something. An alternative way is to look for the outcomes of certain actions. Many Christians believe god answers prayers - well it is in the gospels! Thus we could have a trial in which some patients are prayed for and some are not. Clearly we ought to see the prayed for group do ,much better than the not prayed for group.

Of course, someone has doen such a trail and whilst I couldn't find the actual report for lack of time, here is the NBC report of what happened. As you will see, Holybuckets, on a large trial prayer made no difference at all. That would count against the existence of a god such as Christians claim. It doesn't disprove the idea of a god but it certainly suggests that such an entity is not to be found around the sick and ill.

These are ideas, although a trial of prayer has been done, which show, that at least in principle, it would be possible to indicate if a gods is working in the world today. To date this seems not to be the case.

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)